Archives For Theology

Should Christians Not Heed What Secular Musicians and Music Experts Say concerning the Morality of Music?

December 14, 2013

A Christian recently advised me, “Don’t appeal to the authority of secular rappers or rock musicians: Appeal to Scripture.” He holds a view that many believers today hold about what sources of authoritative information are valid concerning the moral aspects of music. Is this view correct?

Two key Scripture passages answer this question by showing that both believers and unbelievers have validly assessed the shamefulness of people in various respects. The first passage records that both believers and unbelievers did so at a time when the sinfulness of God’s people even included their producing ungodly music.

Righteous Believers Validly Assessed the Ungodliness of Music Produced by Some of God’s People

The Israelites’ profound sinfulness in the Golden Calf incident included music that two righteous believing authorities recognized from a distance as being music unfitting for worship by God’s people:

Exo 32:17 And when Joshua heard the noise of the people as they shouted, he said unto Moses, There is a noise of war in the camp.

 18 And he said, It is not the voice of them that shout for mastery, neither is it the voice of them that cry for being overcome: but the noise of them that sing do I hear.

 19 And it came to pass, as soon as he came nigh unto the camp, that he saw the calf, and the dancing: and Moses’ anger waxed hot, and he cast the tables out of his hands, and brake them beneath the mount.

Although he was at a distance from the camp that did not allow him to know exactly what the people were doing, Joshua discerned that the composite[1] sound that they were producing was a rough-sounding noise of people who were wildly excited, a sound that apparently was quite similar to the noise produced by people engaged in (all-out?) combat. Moses, however, from the same distance that prevented knowing what the words being sung were, was able to discern accurately that the raucous and frenetic noise that these reveling people were producing was the noise of people who were singing.

Moses, therefore, was able to tell from a distance that these out-of-control people (Exod. 32:25) were wildly reveling people who were producing an ungodly sound that certainly was not the sound of Spirit-filled people singing godly music (cf. Eph. 5:18-19). Arriving at the camp, he saw that their reveling also included sensual dancing of such vulgarity that it (and the idol that he finally saw in person) incited him to righteous flaming anger (Exod. 32:19).

Moreover, we know that these people who were singing and dancing wildly were people who had partaken of meat offered to an idol (Exod. 32:6). Having partaken of that meat, these wildly singing and dancing people were people who were doing so after having come into direct contact with demons (1 Cor. 10:20).

These demon-influenced Israelites were thus engaged in an immoral “playing” (1 Cor. 10:7) while they were supposedly observing a “feast to the Lord” (Exod. 32:5). Although they may have thought that they were singing acceptably to the Lord, righteous Israelites who were not influenced by demons on this occasion validly assessed their great wickedness, including the ungodly sounding music that they were producing.

Both Joshua and Moses were able to discern the unfitting-for-divine-worship composite sound of their music from a distance that did not allow them to know at all what they were singing. Regardless of what the words were that they were actually singing, the sound of their singing from a distance was ungodly.

This passage, therefore, teaches us that righteous believers can make a valid assessment that music of people who are supposedly worshiping the Lord is ungodly by assessing the nature of the overall sound produced even by people who are singing words. As Joshua and Moses did, such valid assessments can be made without knowing what the lyrics are that the people are singing.

Even Ordinary Unbelievers Validly Assessed Their Shamefulness

Not only righteous believers, but also their unrighteous enemies validly assessed the great sinfulness of these uncontrolled revelers on this occasion:

Exo 32:25 And when Moses saw that the people were naked; (for Aaron had made them naked unto their shame among their enemies.[2]

This text shows that Scripture records an instance when unbelievers could and did make valid moral assessments about unrighteous worship by God’s people (Exod. 32:17-19)! The people among the Israelites who engaged in the Golden Calf incident had became so openly sinful at this time that even their enemies were ashamed of them.

This passage is especially telling because it shows that a high-level leader among God’s own people sinned so egregiously on this occasion in how he allowed God’s people to get out of control that even the sinful enemies of God’s people plainly recognized that what they were doing was ungodly. Not only were they able to assess validly the immoral behavior of these people, but also they regarded their behavior to be shameful!

Moreover, the passage provides no indication that these who regarded the behavior of the Israelites as shameful at this time were expert authorities on various aspects of human morality. Rather, the passage shows that even ordinary unbelievers validly made these moral assessments about their unrighteous religious activities![3]

Apostolic Recognition That Unbelieving Experts Can Make Valid Moral Assessments

In agreement with Exodus 32, Titus 1 reveals that the apostle Paul held that unbelievers do have the ability to make valid moral assessments of unrighteous human behavior (of various types) by unbelievers (Titus 1:12). Moreover, Paul shows us that it is righteous for Christians to heed such assessments when they are made by unbelieving experts who confirm the believers’ own assessment of such unrighteous behavior (Titus 1:13; see this post for a full explanation of this key point).

Conclusion

Scripture shows that righteous believers can make valid assessments of purported worship of the Lord that is in reality ungodly behavior by believers whose religious activities include producing music that is ungodly (Exod. 32)! Amazingly, it even shows that such assessments of singing can be made without knowing what the lyrics are of such ungodly music.

Scripture also provides us with clear teaching that shows that unbelievers can make valid assessments of unrighteous human behavior both by God’s people (Exod. 32:25) and by other unbelievers (Titus 1:12). Moreover, it is right to heed and appropriately make use of such valid assessments (Titus 1:13).

Applying all this biblical data to the issues concerning music in our day, we learn that Scripture teaches us that Christians should heed the warnings of secular musicians and music experts who warn us about music that is immoral and unfitting for Christian worship (for example, see this brief testimony).

 

[1] Although the passage does not mention their playing any musical instruments, based on the available Scriptural data concerning human feasting (cf. Gen. 31:27; Exod. 15:20; Luke 15:22, 25; etc.), it is highly probable that they were. Either way, the term composite signifies the totality of the sound that they were producing, whether through singing alone or through both singing and playing.

[2] NAU Exo 32:25 Now when Moses saw that the people were out of control– for Aaron had let them get out of control to be a derision among their enemies–; NET Exo 32:25 Moses saw that the people were running wild, for Aaron had let them get completely out of control, causing derision from their enemies; NIV Exo 32:25 Moses saw that the people were running wild and that Aaron had let them get out of control and so become a laughingstock to their enemies; NKJ Exo 32:25 Now when Moses saw that the people were unrestrained (for Aaron had not restrained them, to their shame among their enemies); ESV Exo 32:25 And when Moses saw that the people had broken loose (for Aaron had let them break loose, to the derision of their enemies). What all these translators recognize is that the people became profoundly and openly sinful at this time.

[3] Although the passage does not elaborate at all who these enemies were or what the extent of their knowledge of the Israelites’ sinfulness on this occasion was, we can be certain that what they knew about the ungodly reveling of these Israelites caused them to be ashamed of them.

 

Copyright © 2011-2025 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.

In CCM, Exhortation, Exposition, Theology
 permalink

Do 1 Timothy 4:4-5 and Romans 14:14 Refute What Shai Linne Says They Do?

December 11, 2013

In his first rebuttal to Scott Aniol on the subject of “Christian rap,” Shai Linne asserts, “Scripture clearly refutes” the notion “that music, apart from lyrics, can be sinful in and of itself.” More fully, he writes:

You [Scott] said:

“Yes, I believe that music, apart from lyrics, can be sinful in and of itself.”

I wholeheartedly disagree and I believe Scripture clearly refutes that notion. A few relevant texts:

“For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer.” (1 Timothy 4:4-5 )

“I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself…” (Romans 14:14)

Those are amazing statements coming from the Apostle Paul, a Jewish man who was familiar with the many old covenant dietary restrictions. The key phrase in Romans 14:14? “in itself”. Paul is saying that food doesn’t have inherent moral value. The heart of the one eating it determines how God views the act, not the food itself.

You yourself said, “God created the ‘stuff’ of music (sound, pitch, rhythm, timbre, etc.)”. Agreed. Music is simply the result of human beings arranging that “stuff” that God created. Can it be arranged with evil intent? Sure. And the person who does that will have to give an account for it. But no matter how evil a musician’s intentions, he doesn’t have the power to transform something that God created and called good into something inherently sinful. [1]

Is what Shai Linne asserts here a valid handling of these passages? Various considerations from Scripture combine to answer this question.

Does Paul Teach That Food Does Not Have Inherent Moral Value?

Concerning Romans 14:14, Shai asserts, “Paul is saying that food doesn’t have inherent moral value.” If that were what Paul is saying in Romans 14:14, then Paul would be contradicting himself because he explicitly says in the other passage that Shai quotes that everything that God has created is good: “For every creature of God is good” (1 Tim. 4:4).

Contrary to what Shai asserts, therefore, Paul teaches that food does have inherent moral value because what God has created as food for man is good. Neither 1 Timothy 4:4-5 nor Romans 14:14 teaches that food does not have inherent moral value.

Do 1 Timothy 4:4-5 and Romans 14:14 Support Shai’s Understanding of Music?

About music, Shai says, “Music is simply the result of human beings arranging that ‘stuff’ that God created. Can it be arranged with evil intent? Sure. And the person who does that will have to give an account for it.” With these statements, he acknowledges that people can arrange the ‘stuff’ of music with an evil intent and that they will have to answer to God for doing so.

He then, however, asserts, “But no matter how evil a musician’s intentions, he doesn’t have the power to transform something that God created and called good into something inherently sinful.” When he says this, Shai clearly is asserting that man cannot do something, but what exactly does he mean by what he says here?

If what he means by this statement were that the various elements (the musical “stuff”) that God created (such as individual musical tones) cannot themselves be transformed into something inherently sinful, that would be one thing. Because, however, he means that the resulting product of the human arrangement also cannot be inherently sinful, he is saying something far beyond what either of these passages is saying because neither passage directly addresses what happens when man alters or combines good things that God has made.

Can Man Create Something That Is Inherently Sinful from Something Good That God Created?

Because neither 1 Timothy 4:4-5 or Romans 14:14 actually does what Shai asserts, we have to look elsewhere in Scripture to see if it teaches anywhere one way or the other whether man can take something good that God has created and make something that is in and of itself evil. Deuteronomy 9 provides revelation that addresses this matter explicitly and decisively.

In Deuteronomy 9:1-7, Moses reminds the Israelites of their previous wickedness in the wilderness. He then rehearses their exceeding wickedness in the Golden Calf incident (Deut. 9:8-21).

Moses notes multiple times in this passage that they sinned by making a molten image (Deut. 9:12, 16, 21): They quickly “turned aside out of the way” that God had commanded and “made them a molten image” (Deut. 9:12). They “sinned against the Lord [their] God” and “made . . . a molded calf” (Deut. 9:16; cf. Exod. 32:31).

When he speaks for the third time in the passage about the calf that they made, he says,

Deu 9:21 And I took your sin, the calf which ye had made, and burnt it with fire, and stamped it, and ground it very small, even until it was as small as dust: and I cast the dust thereof into the brook that descended out of the mount.

The exact wording of this third reference to their making the calf is striking: “your sin, the calf which ye had made.” Saying this, Moses puts “the calf which ye had made” in apposition to “your sin.”

Moses thus referred to the calf that they made as their “sin”! He thus said that the calf was itself sinful.[2]

It was not just their evil intent for the calf or their evil use of it that was sinful—the calf itself was a sinful object! These people took gold, an inherently good and highly valuable substance that God created (cf. Gen. 2:12), and made an object out of it that was in and of itself sinful.

Although the gold itself did not become inherently sinful, the golden calf was a manmade fashioning of that gold into something that was inherently sinful! Based on what Scripture says about what man did with gold on this occasion, we understand that this passage refutes the basic principle underlying what Shai asserts is true about the musical “stuff” that God created: “But no matter how evil a musician’s intentions, he doesn’t have the power to transform something that God created and called good into something inherently sinful.”

Discussion

As a key basis for his support of “Christian rap,” Shai Linne asserts that humans cannot take something inherently good that God has created and make something out of it that is in and of itself sinful. Deuteronomy 9:21 refutes this assertion by showing that man did take something inherently good that God created and make it into something that was inherently sinful.

It is important to note that the gold that they made the calf from was from their earrings (Exod. 32:2-3), and we have no indication that their possessing and using gold that had been fashioned into rings to be worn in their ears was sinful. When they took the gold of those earrings, combined it, and molded it into the calf, however, the resulting object that they made for an evil purpose was wicked.

On the one hand, man’s use of his creative powers to make something out of the gold (the earrings) was not sinful. On the other hand, when they through “art and man’s device” (Acts 17:29) made the golden calf, they sinned by making an object that was in and of itself sinful (Deut. 9:21).

Moreover, the golden calf could not be “redeemed.” In spite of the fact that the gold that constituted it was a precious good metal that God had made as good, the golden calf that had been made for and used for a wicked purpose had to be obliterated (Deut. 9:21).

Conclusion

Neither 1 Timothy 4:4-5 nor Romans 14:14 supports the view that man cannot take musical elements and arrange them to make instrumental music that is inherently sinful. Scripture does not “clearly refute” the view “that music, apart from lyrics, can be sinful in and of itself.”

In fact, Deuteronomy 9:21 shows that Scripture provides a clear basis for saying that human beings can take good things that God has made and create something out of them that is inherently sinful.[3] Applying this principle to what many biblical passages reveal about music provides believers with ample justification to say that instrumental music made for and used for wicked purposes is inherently wicked music.


[1] See the full rebuttal by Shai Linne here.

[2] Multiple translations confirm this understanding: “I took your sinful thing, the calf which you had made” (NAU); “As for your sinful thing that you had made, the calf” (NET); “Also I took that sinful thing of yours, the calf you had made” (NIV); “Then I took the sinful thing, the calf that you had made” (ESV); I took the sinful calf you had made” (CSB).

[3] For another argument that establishes the same point see this post.

 

 

 

Copyright © 2011-2025 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.

In CCM, Exposition, Theology
 permalink

Daniel 3 and the Debate about the Inherent Morality of Instrumental Music

December 7, 2013

Daniel 3 records that religion, international politics, and instrumental music converged in a prominent context of idolatrous worship in ancient Babylon. Was the instrumental music on that occasion inherently neutral or even moral?

Instrumental Music Used by Nebuchadnezzar for Idolatrous Worship

King Nebuchadnezzar was the head of the greatest Gentile Empire in human history (Dan. 2:36-38). He served many gods (Dan. 3:12, 14, 18) and decided to erect a colossal golden image (Dan. 3:1) for the purpose of idolatrous worship. He gathered all the leading officials of his kingdom to fall down and worship it (Dan. 3:2-6).

He decreed that all the people assembled were to do so (Dan. 3:4-5), accompanied by music produced by a noteworthy group of instrumentalists:

Dan 3:5 That at what time ye hear the sound of the cornet, flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, dulcimer, and all kinds of musick, ye fall down and worship the golden image that Nebuchadnezzar the king hath set up.

A four-fold repetition of the list of instruments used on this occasion greatly stresses this aspect of the event (Dan. 3:5, 7, 10, 15).

When the musicians played at the appointed time, everyone assembled worshiped the image (Dan. 3:7), but three Jewish leaders did not (Dan. 3:12).

What Can We Know about The Musicians Who Played On This Occasion?

Because this was an international event of great importance, we can be certain that Nebuchadnezzar would have employed only the finest musicians available to him. Because he was the king, he had the resources and authority to secure and gather the best musicians who would know what kind of music would best suit the occasion.

These highly skilled musicians themselves (or some official over them, possibly even King Nebuchadnezzar) undoubtedly chose a style or styles of music that they knew would be best for the idolatrous worship of the image. They surely rehearsed the music properly so that their playing that music for this event would be fully pleasing to the king.

These musicians knew how to play several instruments proficiently, including both wind instruments and stringed instruments.[1] Their willingness to play these instruments for this occasion shows that any of them who may have been Israelites who were brought to Babylon in the captivity (cf. Dan. 1:3-5) were no longer faithful worshipers of only the Lord.

In all likelihood, the vast majority or perhaps even all of these musicians were idolaters of long standing prior to this occasion. It only makes sense that whoever chose the musicians for this event would have chosen as much as possible people who were well known for their devotion to the gods that Nebuchadnezzar worshiped.

Of the musicians who played for this idolatrous worship, those who had been idolaters prior to this occasion would undoubtedly have partaken of meat sacrificed to idols on those previous occasions of their idolatrous worship (cf. Deut. 32:17; Ps. 106:37; Acts 14:13, 18; 17:16, 23, 25; 1 Cor. 10:20). Doing so, they would have had direct contact with demons at those times (1 Cor. 10:20-21).

All of the musicians who had been idolaters prior to this event, therefore, were people who had previously been demonically influenced—they thus would not have been just ordinary sinners who had not had any prior fellowship with demons. Consistent with the nature of the occasion, demonic activity unquestionably played a major role in what actually took place, including the demonic energizing of these musicians (cf. Eph. 2:2-3; 1 John 5:19).

Was the Instrumental Music on This Occasion Neutral or Even Moral?

Scripture does not provide any evidence for holding that the musical instruments that these musicians played were inherently evil. As seen above, however, the musicians who played these instruments were evil people; if for no other reason, they were evil for their agreeing to participate in such idolatrous worship.

When these musicians played for this idolatrous worship “service,” they were knowingly sinning against the true and living God (Rom. 1:18-22). Through their music that contributed to that worship, they robbed Him of the glory that only He is due (Rom. 1:23; cf. Ps. 106:19-20).

Was the demonically influenced music played by the instrumentalists on this occasion still neutral or even moral because God created music? Did “common grace” somehow safeguard that instrumental music so that neither the style or styles of music used nor the music that was played was sinful?

Although God created the basic elements of music, Scripture does not teach that God has created all musical styles or all the music produced by humans using those styles. It is untenable, therefore, to hold that the demonically influenced instrumental music played by evil people on this idolatrous occasion was still neutral or even moral because God created the style or styles that they used—God did not create their styles or their music.

Conclusion

Strong Scriptural emphasis on instrumental music used by these evil people for this exceedingly evil purpose on an evil occasion of international significance demands holding that the music itself was evil unless proven otherwise by compelling biblical data.[2] Brethren who yet wish to hold that the instrumental music on this occasion was inherently neutral or even moral have the burden of proof of showing from a careful handling of Scripture why such was the case.

 

[1] Establishing further the precise identity of each of the instruments listed is not necessary for the purposes of this article.

[2] For much additional biblical teaching that supports this conclusion, see the resources here.

 

Copyright © 2011-2025 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.

In CCM, Interpretation, Theology
 permalink

Can Music (without Lyrics) or a Photograph Ever Be Inherently Sinful?

December 6, 2013

Because I have been closely following recent online developments concerning “Christian” rap music, I have been thinking a lot recently about the claim that music without words cannot be inherently sinful. An analogy from photography helps to show how this claim is false.

How Photographs Themselves Can Be Inherently Sinful

Based on what I have read and heard in recent years, it seems that many Christians in our day apparently believe that no arrangement of things that are in and of themselves inherently good can be inherently sinful. Applying this belief to photography, many would probably argue that no photograph could in and of itself be sinful.

Based on the clear teaching and implications from many biblical passages (Gen. 3:21; 9:21-27; 2 Sam. 11:2-4; Hab. 2:15; Matt. 5:28; 18:6), however, any nude photograph of a very precocious but prepubescent girl in a sexually provocative pose is inherently sinful. The materials from which the sinful image of the girl is created are not inherently sinful, but the sinful image created when such a photograph is taken renders the end product inherently sinful.

According to Scripture, God has not authorized anyone to see such an image (cf. the clear implications of passages such as Hab. 2:15)—neither a parent, nor a doctor, nor any other human being has any right to create, see, or possess any such image. In fact, not even the girl herself has the right to pose for or in some other way create such an image.

It does not matter whatever good intent someone may claim for creating such an image—making such an image is sinful. The “style” of photography that creates such pornographic photos is inherently sinful and the photos themselves are also inherently sinful.

Although unbelievers may reject this position, Christians who believe the Bible are bound by Scripture to hold that such pornographic images are inherently sinful. No claim of Christian “liberty” can legitimately justify rejecting such a view simply because Scripture does not explicitly talk about pornographic pictures being wrong.

How Music without Lyrics Can Also Be Inherently Sinful

Just as it is false to say that no photograph can ever be inherently sinful, it is also false to say that music without lyrics cannot be inherently sinful because its constituent elements (such as musical tones) were created by God as good entities. If those tones are intentionally arranged in a way to create music for wicked purposes, although the tones themselves remain good, that combination is inherently sinful.

Scripture shows that this view is correct by recording several instances of people producing music that was wicked (Exod. 32:17-18 [see the articles in point 11 here]; Ezek. 33:32 [see this treatment]; Amos 6:5 [see this explanation]), including a key passage about instrumental music used for idolatrous worship (Dan. 3:7 [see this treatment]). Furthermore, Scripture is not silent about musical styles that are unacceptable to God, and it also supports in other ways that it is right to hold the view that music without lyrics can be inherently sinful.

Conclusion

It is understandable that unbelievers would hold the view that neither music without lyrics nor a photograph can be inherently sinful. Based, however, on a thorough treatment of what Scripture reveals both explicitly and implicitly, believers should reject this false view.

For more help with many important issues concerning music that is acceptable to God for Christian worship, please see all the resources here.

Copyright © 2011-2025 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.

In CCM, Theology
 permalink

On “Cultural Racism” and Christian Opposition to “Holy Hip-Hop”

December 2, 2013

As an American of Indian origin, I have personally experienced on various occasions suffering caused by genuine racism. As a dedicated Christian who has had to learn to submit to God’s ordaining of those painful experiences for my life, I have learned about my own sinfulness in various respects through these difficulties.

Given my background and life experiences, I was appalled to read recently that some Christians are asserting that “cultural racism” is a root cause of opposition by many believers to “holy hip-hop.” Having viewed the NCFIC video,[1] read several blog posts concerning it,[2] and worked through a vast number of comments on these posts, I feel compelled to respond biblically in a specific respect to this charge of “cultural racism.”

Scriptural Data concerning God’s Judgment on All Aspects of Many Cultures

The validity of the assertion that “cultural racism” is a leading cause of opposition to “holy hip-hop” hinges upon a belief that all cultures have certain neutral or even positive elements worth either preserving or “redeeming,” including especially their musical art forms. Does Scripture support such a belief?

A careful examination of Scripture reveals that on multiple occasions God decisively and comprehensively made known his appraisal of all aspects of many cultures. Three passages show this divine appraisal unmistakably.

Genesis 6-9

At the time of Noah, God infallibly assessed that all humanity had so profoundly debased itself that God was going to annihilate all humans from the earth (Gen. 6:5-7). Out of all humanity living on the earth at this time, only Noah and seven members of his family found grace from God to escape this universal destruction (Gen. 6:8-9; 18).

In light of earlier Scriptural references, we know that there were a vast number of other peoples living at this time (Gen. 4:16-24; 6:1-4) from whom there were no survivors after the Flood. Not only did all those people perish, but also everything about their cultures, societies, lifestyles, etc. was obliterated.

We have no basis for holding that Noah, his wife, his three sons, and their wives had ever had comprehensive exposure of any kind to all of these other cultures that were annihilated. We further know that at least some of these people were instrumentalists whose music had considerable time to degenerate (Gen. 4:21 cf. 6:5; see my post Are All Musical Styles Inherently Moral? for a full explanation of this important point).

Through the Flood, God thus rendered comprehensive judgment on all aspects of many cultures, including their musical art forms. Genesis 6-9 therefore refutes the notion that all cultures have had musical art forms that were worth preserving or “redeeming.”

Genesis 18-19

In the time of Abraham and Lot, the Lord noted that “the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah [was] great” and that “their sin [was] very grievous” (Gen. 18:20). Because of the profound wickedness of these people, God annihilated them:

Gen 19:24 Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;

25 And he overthrew those cities, and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground.

God spared only Lot, his wife,[3] and their two daughters from this judgment (Gen. 19:16).[4] We have no basis in Scripture, however, for holding that Lot and his two daughters somehow preserved all the musical art forms of Sodom and Gomorrah from destruction because those art forms were of some supposedly inherent worth.

God’s total obliteration of everything about Sodom and Gomorrah does not support holding that they had musical aspects of their cultures that were worth preserving or “redeeming.” Both Genesis 6-9 and Genesis 18-19 show that God has assessed many cultures in human history as having no aspects of their cultures that were worth preserving or “redeeming,” including their musical art forms.

Joshua 6-8

God ordained that the Israelites were to conquer the Canaanites (cf. for example, Josh. 3:10) and place whole cities and everything in them under a ban (cf. Josh. 6:17-18). Although God did graciously preserve and redeem Rahab the harlot and all who were with her in her house (Josh. 6:17) from His destruction of Jericho, everyone else was utterly destroyed (Josh. 6:21).

We have no indication in this passage or anywhere else in Scripture that God preserved Rahab and her household because He desired to preserve or redeem some supposedly inherently worthy cultural aspects of the culture of Jericho. We furthermore have no basis to hold that Rahab and her household were proficient at all the musical art forms of Jericho and served as a means of preserving them.

Rather, God’s judgment of Jericho was a judgment of all aspects of it, including its musical art forms. What transpired next in Ai provides a striking implicit confirmation of this interpretation.

When the Israelites attempted to conquer Ai, they were soundly defeated (Josh. 7:4-5) because Achan, one of them, had violated the ban and sinned by taking some things that God had forbidden (Josh. 7:11-13; 20-21). Among the forbidden items that he coveted was “a goodly Babylonish garment” (Josh. 7:21).

God does not provide any explanation for why this beautiful garment had to be destroyed. Even though this garment was apparently in at least some respects a valuable work of human artistic ability, God did not want it to be preserved or “redeemed.”

At God’s direction, the Israelites rendered a fierce judgment on Achan, his household, the garment, and everything that belonged to him (Josh. 7:24-26). They then proceeded to annihilate all the people of Ai (Josh. 8:24-29), showing that God did not preserve any of its cultural art forms.

God’s catastrophic and comprehensive judgment on Jericho, Ai, and many other Canaanite cities and peoples (cf. Josh. 10:29-43) shows that these cultures did not have any cultural art forms that God wanted preserved or “redeemed.”

Is “Cultural Racism” Responsible for Much Christian Opposition to “Holy Hip-Hop”?

Scripture provides abundant evidence for believers to know that it is wrong to hold that all cultures have art forms that are worth preserving or “redeeming.” Christians who are well taught in Scripture and whose thinking is steeped in what Scripture teaches therefore have strong justification for holding that it is legitimate to believe that certain musical art forms of certain cultures are not worth preserving or “redeeming.”[5]

Furthermore, unless a believer has the ability to know infallibly what is in the heart of those believers who oppose “holy hip-hop,” it is wrong and unhelpful for him to charge them with “cultural racism” because they reject this particular musical expression of some human cultures. Injecting racism into the debate about musical styles is illegitimate and dishonoring to people who have suffered painfully because of genuine racism.

 

[1] Available for viewing here.

[2] http://www.mikedcosper.com/home/creation-culture-redemption-and-hip-hop-a-response-the-ncfic-panel; http://www.baptisttwentyone.com/2013/11/death-rattle-or-life-preserver-an-appeal-to-the-ncfic-panelists/; http://brenthobbs.com/index_files/Christian_Rap.php

[3] Lot’s wife perished soon thereafter because she looked back toward Sodom (Gen. 19:26).

[4] At Lot’s request, the Lord also spared a small nearby town called Zoar from the destruction that He had purposed to bring at this time (Gen. 19:17-23). Although He graciously spared this town, we know from the judgment that he had planned to bring on this town at this time (Gen. 19:17, 19, 21) that His assessment of its wickedness was no different from that of Sodom and Gomorrah.

[5] For another helpful article explaining why it is legitimate to reject “Christian rap,” see On Reformed Rap.

Copyright © 2011-2025 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.

In CCM, Exposition, Theology
 permalink

Learning about Thanksgiving from Jesus

November 29, 2013

Thanksgiving is a prime occasion for believers to praise and thank God for all His benefits to them. Jesus teaches us to be thankful for something that probably not many believers often praise God for doing.

The Preceding Successful Mission of the Seventy

Prior to Luke’s recording that Jesus gave thanks to God for something that many believers likely rarely praise God for, Luke records Jesus’ instruction to the seventy after they had returned from their mission:

Luk 10:17 And the seventy returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name. 18 And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven. 19 Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you. 20 Notwithstanding in this rejoice not, that the spirits are subject unto you; but rather rejoice, because your names are written in heaven.

With these words, Jesus taught these believers that they should not rejoice that they had power over demonic spirits but rather they should rejoice that their names are written in heaven.

I have heard other believers praise and thank God a number of times for the glorious truth that their names are written in heaven, and I often do so as well in my prayers. Thanksgiving is a prime occasion for us to thank God for this wonderful reality!

A Striking Record of Jesus’ Giving Thanks to God

After his instruction to the seventy who returned from their successful mission, Jesus uttered some striking words. These statements reveal profound things that Jesus praised and thanked God for doing:

Luk 10:21 In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight.

In exultant gratitude to the Father, Jesus praised Him as the Lord of heaven and earth that He had both hidden certain things from certain people and revealed those things to others. Jesus then expressed His assent to the Father’s doing these things that were good in His (the Father’s) sight.

A full exposition of these statements from Jesus would require a lengthy treatment; what is unmistakable from this teaching without such a full treatment is that Jesus was thanking God for hiding His truth from certain people and revealing it to others! What Jesus said next to the Father confirms this interpretation:

 Luk 10:22 All things are delivered to me of my Father: and no man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him.

Jesus thus thanked God not only for revealing Himself to certain people but also for His hiding true knowledge of Himself from others!

What Believers Should Praise and Thank God for Doing

Based on this passage, believers should be like Jesus by giving thanks to the Father for revealing things to them that they would never have been able to know had He not seen fit to do so. They should also give thanks to the Son for revealing the Father to them.

Should believers also be like Jesus by giving thanks to the Father for hiding things from other people, specifically “the wise and prudent”? Giving God thanks for doing this may go strongly counter to the thinking of even many believers, but Jesus’ perfect example in doing so means that they must learn from Him to honor God by also thanking Him for concealing His truth from the people that He has seen fit to do so.

Copyright © 2011-2025 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.

In Discipleship, Exposition, Interpretation, Theology
 permalink

Should We Follow Paul in What Acts 24 Reveals?

November 25, 2013

Acts 24 provides revelation about an aspect of Paul’s life that has major bearing on how believers should conduct themselves in a fallen world. Should we follow Paul in what Acts 24 reveals about him?

Unjustly Arrested and Imprisoned for His Faith in Christ

Although he had not done anything wrong (Acts 23:29; 24:12-13, 19; 26:31-32), Paul was unjustly apprehended (Acts 21:27), beaten (Acts 21:32), bound with chains (Acts 21:33) and imprisoned (Acts 22:24f.) for his faith in Christ. He endured much unjust suffering at the hands of various authorities over a period of several years (cf. Acts 24:27).

Extended Contact with a Corrupt Governmental Authority

One of those authorities was Felix the governor (Acts 23:24, 33). Paul plainly testified to him of his need for faith in Christ (Acts 24:24), but Felix did not receive the message properly (Acts 24:25).

Not only does the Spirit see fit to record that Felix rejected the gospel, but He also deemed it worth to note explicitly another dimension of his interaction with Paul:

Act 24:26 He hoped also that money should have been given him of Paul, that he might loose him: wherefore he sent for him the oftener, and communed with him.

This telling remark makes known that Felix was a corrupt governmental authority who often sent for Paul and met with him because he was hoping that Paul would give him money so that he might be set free. These meetings continued for two years (Acts 24:27), showing that Paul had extended personal contact with this corrupt governor.

The Stellar Ethical Standards of Paul and Other Believers

Paul was suffering unjustly for an extended period. Had he or the other believers who interacted freely with him during his time of imprisonment under Felix (Acts 24:23) been willing to pay off Felix, Paul would have been set free and would have been able to resume his apostolic gospel ministry that had resulted in multitudes coming to salvation (cf. Acts 13:48; 14:21; 17:4, 12; 18:8) and a vast number of believers being discipled at length (e.g., Acts 14:27-28; 15:35, 41).

Neither Paul nor any of the other believers, however, were willing to pay Felix the money that he hoped for; they all apparently believed that it would be unethical for them to do so. Even though Paul was innocent and had been suffering unjustly for a long time, he would not pay a bribe to this corrupt official to secure his release.

The Contemporary Importance of the Example of Paul and These Other Believers

Faced with the opportunity to pay off a corrupt official to secure his freedom, Paul chose to remain imprisoned rather than to do what was wrong. The other believers who ministered freely to him likewise refused to pay off this corrupt official to free Paul.

Believers today often face situations in which corrupt officials demand that they pay money in exchange for permission to conduct ministry or to be able to go in and out of various countries for various purposes. Many believers go along with these demands so that these officials will not trouble them and will allow them to minister without further hindrance.

Given what the Holy Spirit has chosen to reveal to us about the stellar ethical standards of Paul and other believers when the life and ministry of the apostle Paul was on the line, is it right for contemporary believers to continue to go along with such demands? Should we not rather follow Paul (cf. 1 Cor. 11:1) in what Acts 24 reveals and refuse such demands regardless of the consequences?

Copyright © 2011-2025 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.

In Discipleship, Exposition, Theology
 permalink

Beware Dangerously Wrong Thinking about Your Life as a Christian!

November 23, 2013

I am concerned that various influences have affected many believers so that they are approaching their lives with dangerously wrong thinking. Here are two key false notions of which you should beware.

1. I am an ordinary person, so Satan is not going to bother with me. He only targets important people.

Apostolic instruction to all believers warning them about Satan shows that this is a very dangerous false view (Eph. 4:27; James 4:7; 1 Peter 5:8-9). Satan wants to devour every believer—you are one of his targets regardless of who you are!

2. I am a Christian and I have the Spirit in me. Satan cannot influence me to do wrong without my knowing that he is attacking me.

David was a believer who had the Holy Spirit upon him for the rest of his life after Samuel anointed him (“And the Spirit of the Lord came upon David from that day forward” [1 Sam. 16:13]). Yet Satan “provoked David to number Israel” (1 Chron. 21:1).

Neither 1 Chronicles 21 nor the parallel passage in 2 Samuel 24 provides any indication that David ever had any idea that Satan had influenced him to do so. In fact, it is unthinkable that David would have done what he did had he known that Satan was moving him to do so.

Something similar also happened to Ananias. He conceived a wicked thing in his heart (Acts 5:4), and his wife conspired with him to do so (Acts 5:2, 9). Luke reveals key information about what else happened to Ananias: “Satan filled [his] heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land” (Acts 5:3).

As with David, we have no indication in Scripture that Ananias knew anything about Satan’s filling his heart to sin against God. Being a Christian and having the Spirit in you does not mean that Satan cannot influence you without your knowing it!

Beware dangerously wrong thinking about your life as a Christian along either of these lines!

Copyright © 2011-2025 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.

In Discipleship, Exhortation, Exposition, Theology
 permalink

Are All Musical Styles Inherently Moral?

November 21, 2013

Some believers hold that all musical styles are inherently moral. I have been investigating for many months now all that I can find in Scripture that might pertain to this position.

Meditating on various passages about music early in human history led me recently to examine Genesis 6:5, a verse that I had never previously considered for its relevance to the issues of our day concerning music. In particular, does this key statement about all humanity support the view that all musical styles are inherently moral?

Musical Development before the Time of Noah

Genesis 4 provides the earliest information in Scripture about human music. Jubal, the eighth in the ungodly line of Cain (Adam, Cain, Enoch, Irad, Mehujael, Methusahel, Lamech, Jubal [Gen. 4:17-21]), “was the father of all such as handle the harp and organ” (Gen. 4:21).

This text reveals that Jubal and others played musical instruments, but it does not mention that they sang as well when they played. Although it is likely that these people were also singing at least some of the time when they played their instruments, lack of any Scriptural mention about human singing at this time or at any time prior to it requires that we focus on the nature of their playing the instruments that they possessed.

In order for any musical instrument to be played intelligibly, the player must produce a distinction of tones with the instrument (1 Cor. 14:7). How he chooses to make those distinctions is guided by his thought processes.

Regardless of whatever style or styles of music Jubal and those who followed him devised for playing the harp and the organ, we can be certain that those styles were the products of human mental activity. As such, they would necessarily reflect what was in their hearts.

Extensive Musical Development by the Time of Noah

Genesis 4:21 is the only explicit information in Scripture that we have about human music prior to time of Noah. As we saw, it teaches us that men in the ungodly line of Cain were playing musical instruments in the eighth generation from Adam.

Genesis 5 reveals that Noah was the tenth in the godly line of Seth (Adam, Seth, Enosh, Kenan, Mahalel, Jared, Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, Noah [Gen. 5:3-29]). Given that Noah was two generations later in his line than Jubal was in his line, we can be certain that human musical ability in playing those instruments had developed extensively from the time of Jubal to the time of Noah.

Can we know anything more about that development? Because Scripture does not give us any explicit revelation about human music in the time of Noah, some would say that we are unable to know anything more about that development. A close examination of Genesis 6 in comparison with Genesis 4-5, however, proves otherwise.

Profound Musical Degeneracy by the Time of Noah

Genesis 6 does not provide any explicit information about music. It does provide, however, key implicit information that has profound relevance for our understanding of music by the time of Noah.

From when Jubal originated playing the harp and the organ to the time of Noah, human beings had degenerated so profoundly that God assessed them to be only continually evil in every intent of their thoughts:

Gen 6:5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

Does this statement include the musical imaginations of the thoughts of their hearts? As discussed above, human production of music necessarily reflects the thinking of those who produce the music. For this reason, this statement must also pertain to their musical imaginations.

Moreover, because God had already explicitly noted earlier in Genesis the musical activities of ungodly men who lived long before this time, we know that God wants the reader of Genesis to have in mind that humans had been playing music for quite some time by the time of Noah.

Based on both of these considerations, we have no basis to think legitimately that Genesis 6:5 does not also apply to human musical endeavors at the time of Noah. We must understand rather that every imagination of the thoughts of human hearts in Noah’s time concerning music was also only evil continually.

Were There Profoundly Degenerate Musical Styles at the Time of Noah?

When Jubal became the father of all that play the harp and the organ, he and the others who learned to play those instruments obviously had to use their mental abilities to use those instruments to produce the sounds that they wanted to create. By necessity, whatever music they did play had to be of one or more styles because musical styles are nothing more than “distinctive man-made musical patterns of sounds that the player uses his mental processes to create for whatever purpose or purposes he desires to use those sounds” (my definition).

Because playing the harp and the organ originated in the ungodly line of Cain, we might infer that the styles that they played on those instruments were also ungodly (in keeping with their character). Although this inference may be valid, we do not have enough information to prove its validity rigorously.

By the time of Noah, however, much time had elapsed and mankind became increasingly evil. In fact, all humanity had profoundly degenerated to such an extent that God infallibly declared that every intent of the thoughts of their hearts was only evil continually.

Because musical styles necessarily reflect the thought processes of those who originate or use those styles, we have no basis for saying that there were not musical styles of corrupt humanity at this time that matched the corruption of their hearts. On the contrary, man’s profound degeneracy at this time guarantees that there were profoundly degenerate musical styles at the time of Noah.

Discussion

From what we have learned through studying Genesis 4-6, we conclude that Scripture does not support holding that all musical styles are inherently moral because immoral musical styles certainly existed at the time of Noah. People may nevertheless raise various objections to this conclusion and the reasoning from Scripture employed to arrive at it.

Some may say that the musical degeneracy of the people in Noah’s time was in the words that they sang but not in their styles of playing the instruments. This is an invalid objection for at least two reasons.

As discussed above, Scripture provides no explicit evidence that these people were also singing when they played. To argue that their degeneracy was in what they sang, therefore, has no basis in Scripture.

Furthermore, regardless of whether they were singing or not, human production of instrumental music requires the use of mental processes to play the instruments, and what people play reflects their thinking. Because mankind was utterly corrupt in its thinking at this time, their musical styles were also certainly corrupt.

Another objection that some may offer to this conclusion is that “common grace” from God “insulated” their musical styles from being corrupt. Genesis 6:5 pointedly refutes this objection by saying explicitly that every intent of their thoughts was evil. We would need explicit biblical revelation or indication to hold legitimately, therefore, that “common grace” somehow insured that their musical styles were an exception to the force of this revelation.

The successive revelation further implies that this objection is invalid. Moses makes clear that Noah and seven members of his family were the only human beings to receive saving grace from God so that they were not destroyed. By the grace of God, Noah alone was found righteous in the sight of God at this time.

Because the rest of humanity did not receive such grace from God, we can be certain that their musical styles were not insulated somehow from the pervasive corruption of their intents concerning all other areas of their lives. “Common grace” did not prevent their musical styles from being degenerate.

Conclusion

Sound biblical reasoning applied to Genesis 4-6 teaches us that there were evil musical styles at the time of Noah because their musical styles necessarily reflected the pervasive corruption of all their thinking. We, therefore, know that the position that all musical styles are inherently moral is incorrect.

In light of this biblical evidence (as well as other biblical data), Christians who wish to continue holding the opposing view have the burden of proof of showing from Scripture that their position is nonetheless valid in spite of what Genesis 4-6 reveals about human music.

Copyright © 2011-2025 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.

In CCM, Exposition, Interpretation, Theology
 permalink

Learning from “The Cross-Billy Graham’s Message to America”

November 15, 2013

Watching Dr. Billy Graham’s recent message[1] has motivated me to write again about sound gospel ministry that is based fully on all that the Bible says. To that end, I share this assessment of his message.

Biblical Aspects of His Message

Dr. Graham’s message has many biblical aspects to it. The following are things that stood out to me:

1. A moving, proper emphasis on God’s love for sinful mankind

“The Cross expresses the great love of God for man.”

2. A necessary testimony to both Jesus and God the Father that distinguishes them from each other

3. A valuable underscoring of the exclusivity of Christ as the only way of salvation and the only hope for ending the misery of living a sinful life

He quotes John 14:6, and the message makes this truth plain in other ways as well, including through two moving testimonies from people whose lives have been delivered from hopeless entrenchment in sin.

4. An appropriate confrontation of every viewer with the reality that the leading causes of the world’s greatest problems are spiritual in nature

5. A clear declaration that all humans are sinners and worthy of hell and judgment

“The Cross was the most terrible form of execution by the Romans for criminals, and Jesus endured all that in our place because of our sins. We deserve the Cross. We deserve hell. We deserved judgment and all that that means.”

6. An inescapable testimony to the Cross and to the Resurrection

 “In that terrible moment, He and God the Father were separated.”

 “The Cross and the Resurrection of Christ offers forgiveness of sin.”

7. A strong exhortation and challenge  to receive forgiveness of sins through repentance and faith

“The Cross and the Resurrection of Christ offers forgiveness of sin, offers a whole new life, and offers you eternal life, if you come to the Cross by repentance and faith.”

Given that the message has these many biblical aspects to it, some may wonder what could possibly be wrong with such ministry.

Unbiblical Aspects of His Message

Although there are many important aspects of this message that are biblical, it also has many key aspects that are unbiblical.[2] The following are some of the main criticisms that I have of his message:

1. A declaration that God has directed him to friendship with some who belong to a system of belief that has led to the martyring of millions of Christians

“As I look back over my life, it’s full of surprises. I never thought that I would become friends with people in different countries all over the world. . . . I see how God’s hand has gathered me. . . . God has done this.”

These statements are made as various pictures are shown at that point in the video, including one of Dr. Graham meeting a high-level religious official of Roman Catholicism.

A sound understanding of biblical teaching about separation (2 Chron. 19:2; 2 Cor. 6:14-18; 2 John 9-11) informs us that such a declaration has no place in sound gospel ministry.

2. A besmirching of the holiness of God (cf. Rom. 12:1-2) by using someone (Lecrae Moore) to testify how he was saved who now employs a depraved worldly means of communication (hip hop) to present the truth to others. The presentation of how and where Moore “ministers” undercuts the call to repentance presented elsewhere in the message.

3. A complete lack of testimony to the infernal role of Satan in bringing about the problems of the world and of all the people in it (cf. Gen. 3:15; Acts 10:38; I John 3:8)

4. A disproportionate emphasis on the Cross

Unlike the gospel preaching of the apostles that highly emphasized the Resurrection, Dr. Graham and the others who testify in the video spend far more time talking about the Cross than they do about the Resurrection. In fact, Dr. Graham’s testimony to the latter is limited to the word “Resurrection” early in the message and to two brief sentences toward the end of the message.[3]

5. A highly objectionable and erroneous explanation of what happened when Jesus died

“And when Christ died on that Cross, He became guilty of lying, He became guilty of slander, He became guilty of jealousy, He became guilty of the most filthy, dirty sins. Christ took the hell that you and I deserve.”

Yes, Jesus Christ took the penalty for our sins, but Scripture presents no evidence that He became guilty of committing any sin!

6. A lack of biblical testimony to the bodily resurrection of Christ and its significance for all men

It is tragic that Dr. Graham did not take advantage of such an excellent opportunity to communicate clearly and emphatically to potentially multiplied millions of viewers that Jesus Christ rose bodily from the dead. He does not mention anything about those who saw Him after He arose (1 Cor. 15:5-8), and he does not testify that those witnesses heard Him, touched Him, and ate and drank with Him (cf. Acts 10:41).[4]

Instead of spending so much time focused on testimony to the Cross, Dr. Graham should have used some of that time to provide vital testimony that would have made it impossible for any attentive and honest viewer to come away with a deficient understanding of the nature of the Resurrection of Christ (e.g., Christ only rose spiritually). He also should have borne clear testimony to what God has proven to all men everywhere through His raising Jesus from the dead (Acts 17:30-31).

7. A problematic model prayer

At the end of his message, Dr. Graham asks people to follow him in praying to God. He begins that prayer in this way:

“Dear Heavenly Father, I know that I am a sinner, and I ask for Your forgiveness. I believe that you’ve died for my sins and rose from the dead.”

God the Father did not die on the Cross! The apostles never taught people to pray this way. This is not a biblical way to pray.

Discussion

Dr. Graham’s video message presents many biblical truths that God could use in the lives of unbelievers. It is highly questionable, however, that a lost person with little or no biblical background would understand the truths communicated properly so that he would be genuinely saved.

Lacking sufficient and proper testimony to key truths and presenting an emotionally moving message, the video has significant potential for resulting in false professions. Lost people, however, who have had other exposure to the gospel that has given them a proper understanding of the key aspects that this message does not communicate could be genuinely saved through God’s use of their viewing this video.

Believers who view the video and invest the terminology communicated with proper biblical meaning will likely find the video to be stirring in spite of its serious flaws. For believers who have not had thorough training in biblical evangelism, the video has the potential of misleading them concerning how key biblical truths about salvation should be presented.

Conclusion

In spite of the many flaws in this video message, may God graciously see fit to use the truths that are properly communicated to work in the hearts of many needy people who are lost and need salvation from their sins. From both the biblical and unbiblical aspects of this message, let us who already know Him learn better (and put into practice) how we should properly communicate God’s saving truth to lost people.


[1] The Cross-Billy Graham’s Message to America (a Youtube video)

[2] The points in this section follow the order of what is presented in the video. They are not arranged in any particular order of increasing or decreasing seriousness.

[3] Lacey Sturm, another key person in the video, actually bears more testimony to the Resurrection in the excerpt from one of her songs shown in the video than Dr. Graham does in his entire message.

[4] Moore and Sturm also do not bear testimony explicitly to the bodily resurrection of Jesus.

Copyright © 2011-2025 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.

In Evangelism, Gospel, Theology
 permalink